>In article <amm2c2hbok0av5d9m55f0t5066f85akicm@4ax.com>,> Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:19:22 -0600, Virgil <virgil@comcast.net> wrote:>> >> >In article <u7mvb216tu9aa62tl6854d9fqemi92e72c@4ax.com>,>> > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote:>> >>> >> >> >Zick has presented no "exhaustive alternatives", he merely keeps >> >> >> >talking >> >> >> >as if there were some.>> >> >> >> >> >> And Verge keeps talking as if there were none.>> >> >>> >> >I am talking as if it has not been established whether there are any, at >> >> >least until one has assumed something on which to base distinguishing >> >> >alternatives.>> >> >> >> Assumed the truth of something used to establish the truth of what is>> >> assumed.>> > >> >I am familiar with assuming something true in order to show that it is >> >actually false, but have never seen any assumption successfully used to >> >prove itself true.>> >> One doesn't. One initially assumes something true and then uses its>> tautological alternative to show that the tautological alternative is>> absolutely false which proves that the initial assumptions is>> necessarily and universally true by inference.>> >> Example:>> >> I assume initially but can't prove "A" is universally true.>> >> I then examine "not A" to see whether it's universally false. If so>> the universal truth of "A" is demonstrated because the tautological>> proposition "A, not A" is exhaustive of all possibilities for truth.>>If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid..

I don't assume the law of the excluded middle to be valid in generalexpecially where compound predicates are involved. It's actually onlyvalid in the one instance where single universal predicates are used.

>> >As usual, I request an example of Zick's alleged assumption used to >> >prove itself true.>> >> Well perhaps the general claim is too obscure.>> >> >And as usual, Zick will not provide one.>> >> See the example of the reasoning involved above. The initial>> assumption "A" is just an assumption and does not and cannot be used>> to prove itself. That should go without saying. However we can>> recognize the fact of self contradiction in "not A" if it is present>> and if present we can assume "not A" is universally false from that>> and infer that "A" must be universally true because its tautologically>> exhaustively alternative is always false.>>If you claim that you can prove "A" this way then you are using the law >of the excluded middle, which you said you did not assume to be valid..>> >> >> The fact of universal self contradiction is not necessarily obvious in>> examples like "not A" because there is nothing apparent in the example>> to indicate it. But in an example like "not not" the fact of self>> contradiction is obvious>> Not to me, as I have no idea what "not not" is saying that could be >interpreted as self contradictory.

You don't see the "contradiction of contradiction" as selfcontradictory? My but you are uncommonly slow.

>The only sensible interpretation I can think of is that for every >proposition A, "not not" returns the proposition "not(notA))".>And this interpretation confounds Zick's argument.

And how about the proposition "not(not)"? What does that return?

>> and we infer with confidence that "not" must>> be absolutely and universally true because its tautological>> alternative "not not" is obviously and necessarily self contradictory>> and hence false and the tautological combination (not, "not not")>> exhausts all possibilities for truth.>>>Zick's "inference with confidence" fails to inspire me with the least >iota of confidence that "not not" is anything but doubletalk.